I. Introduction
In the United States, Theodore Kaczynski, a mathematics prodigy and professor who received brilliant education in Harvard University, killed and wounded victims by mailing hand-crafted explosives to the victims; a doctor performs a risky late-term abortion on a woman whose life is on the edge; a man diagnosed with HIV intentionally ignores the use of contraceptives and has unprotected sex with numerous women. All the acts listed above involve harming human beings in one form or another, [either fatally or sexually]. So why do people choose to behave in such morally deplorable manner? This paper would like to explore the biosocial factors underlying criminal behavior.
Criminal psychology is a relatively new branch that emerged around 50 years ago. It is defined as the study of the thoughts and intentions of individuals that partake in criminal behavior. In other words, this area of psychology explores the innate features and the external drives that compels an individual to execute violent criminal behaviors.
At first sight, the most commonly shared view towards criminals is revulsion and hatred. However, many of us never ruminate the possible biological and ecological factors that underlies criminal behavior. A criminal behavior is a complex and systematic process that results from the interaction between individuals, social groups, and also inherent disposition. One of the many approaches to examine criminals is a biosocial approach, which will be the main focus of this paper.
Over the years, the nature-nurture debate is the primary approach to explain or predict criminal behavior in order to reduce crime rates. Researchers often overlooked the biosocial approach, but in recent years the biosocial approach is rekindled by compelling empirical evidence. Researchers are starting to realize the potential of this integrated approach, and are taking into account individual’s prior environmental influence along with their predisposition. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the biosocial approach in criminology by focusing on the research question: To what extent do biosocial interactions play a role in the perpetration of violent crime?
Various contemporary studies that investigated the interaction between the environment with genes, neurophysiology, and evolution will be employed in this paper. Two key theories- the Reward Dominance Theory (RDT) and the Prefrontal Dysfunction Theory will also be discussed along with empirical evidence that supports the proposition of these theories.
DEFINITION OF CRIME
Understanding and distinguishing what is really meant by the term ‘crime’ is important in this paper. According to the OED, crime is an act that constitutes an offence and breaks prohibitory rules or laws. As distinguished by David Abrahamsen, “an antisocial act is always involved when a crime is committed, a crime is not always involved when an antisocial act is committed.” (Abrahamsen, 14) Ultimately, criminal laws are determined by people of higher public authority, and they deem what actions are crime, and what actions are not. These laws are enacted to protect citizens either from harassment, loss of property, and a myriad of other actions.
To put it in more legal terms, crime is an intentional act or failure to act that is in violation of criminal law, committed without defense or excuse, and penalized by the state as a felony or misdemeanor (Cassel 2). If a misdemeanor is conducted, the criminal can, by law, be incarcerated for at most a year in a local jail, along with a fine of thousands of dollars. Criminals who conduct a felony can be punished by incarceration in any state penitentiary for up to one year to life.
II. Definition of ‘Biosocial Approach’ and Terms and Theories
a. WHAT IS A “BIOSOCIAL” APPROACH?
A biosocial approach to criminal psychology emphasizes that biological and environmental factors are inextricably intertwined. The approach recognizes that any behavior in human beings, or living organisms in general, is the result of the interaction between the two. (Walsh, 1) Hence, instead of isolating nature and nurture as etiologies of criminal behavior, a biosocial approach is an integration of both nature and nurture perspectives.
The biosocial approach is also developmental in the sense of it’s dynamicity (Walsh 2011). The approach suggests that biological factors like genes pave trajectories for living organisms, but fluctuations in the environment can completely alter this trajectory.
Generally, there are three main biosocial approaches to inspect criminal behavior: the genetic, the evolutionary, and the neuroscience, and it is important to note that all three methods are consolidated with environmental factors.
b. “REWARD DOMINANCE THEORY”
The Reward (or Reinforcement) Dominance Theory (RDT) is a key theory in biosocial criminology (Cauffman, Steinberg & Piquero, 2005). One of the principles in the sociocultural level of analysis is that “human beings are social animals with a basic need to belong” (Pearson Book,?). In order for ‘social animals’ to belong to a social group, the ability to respond to rewards and punishments in a socially appropriate manner is necessary.
The RDT postulates that behavior is regulated by three mechanisms: behavioral activating system (BAS), the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), and the flight-fight-freeze system (FFFS) (Walsh 2001). To describe these three mechanisms in a briefer manner, the BAS compels an individual to pursue rewarding stimuli, whereas the BIS is an inhibitor that controls the extent of the pursue so that it does not go too far.
c. “PREFRONTAL DYSFUNCTION THEORY”
The Prefrontal Dysfunction Theory is another key theory that concerns the abnormality of the prefrontal cortex (PCT) in certain individuals. The PFC corresponds to, or is responsible for, many human attributes such as “making moral judgments, analysing, synthesizing, and modulating emotions” (Raine, 2002). Collectively, the functions of the prefrontal cortex are known as executive functions (EF) and can be said as the basis of prosocial behavior.
If the PFC is damaged in any way, the executive functions will be compromised which can result in antisocial behavior, and if the damage is severe violent criminal behaviour can surface.
d. Shared and Non-Shared Environment
Shared environment is an environment that applies to children reared in the same family. A few variables in a shared environment could be parenting style, parental socioeconomic status, or religion (Walsh,15).
On the contrary, there are two types of non-shared environment: familial or extra-familial. Familial non-shared factors can be gender or favouritism, whereas extra-familial include variables such as different types of friends.
III. GENETICS
a. What is ‘Behavior Genetics’
Behavior genetics is a branch of genetics that examines the extent to which heredity and the environment contributes to behavioral characteristics. According to the study of behavior genetics, any human trait, such as IQ, height, or blood pressure, is the result of the interaction between genes and the environment. It should be emphasized that genes are not the etiologies for our behavior or feelings, rather [they facilitate dispositions to respond to the environments in a particular way]. There are no specific genes that corresponds to a specific criminal behavior, but there are genes that lead to criminal-like traits such as low empathy and impulsiveness. In turn, individuals with these traits have a higher likelihood to commit crime when faced with the right environments.
b. Interaction and Correlation between Gene and Environment
Gene-environment interaction (GxE) and gene-environment correlation (rGE) are processes in which individuals create micro-environments that best accommodate their genetic predisposition. GxE avers that, genetically, everyone has different sensitivities to an identical environmental influence and will formulate diverging expressions towards the environment. For example, when an adolescent is pressured by high expectations from society, an extroverted and impulsive adolescent is more likely to engage in antisocial or criminal behavior. On the other hand, there is a smaller probability that an introverted and constrained adolescent will seek for opportunities to participate in antisocial or criminal behavior. Although genotypes lead to the development of phenotypic traits, it is the phenotype (combination of gene and experience) that interact with the environment when on a trajectory.
Various studies have attempted to suggest a link between several candidate genes and felonies. However, success was limited and none of these genes account for a ‘larger percentage of phenotypic variance in crime’ (Goldman & Ducci 2007).
According to Goldman and Ducci (2007), the link between gene and environment in the causation of criminal behavior is not always constant, instead it varies across the lifespan. They also asserted that there is a positive correlation between age and genetic influence on delinquency, whereas environmental effects on delinquency tend to decrease as an individual age. Majority of the studies done in the biosocial approach supports Goldman and Ducci’s assertion. For example, Miles & Carey (1997) and Jacobson et al. (2002) reported lower heritability estimates and higher environmental contributions to violent behavior or conduct problems in childhood compared to adolescence.
IV. Neuroscience
a. THE BRAIN
To understand how different environments affect behavior, first the brain must be thoroughly understood. The process of amalgamation of genetics and environmental experiences takes place in the brain as it “captures the environment in its circuitry” (Walsh,39). The neurons, or communication networks, in our brains enable us to think and feel. In neuroscience, it is believed that primitive networks are hard-wired at birth, but to develop more complex networks are dependent on individual environmental experiences, which are soft-wired. Since development of the brain is contingent upon the environment, the brain is a “work in progress”.